AY 2021- 2022 Systematic Program Evaluation Summary

Submitted December, 2022

This data reflects student performance and feedback after completing the program, the input from which will be used to guide program practice and policy. Each section will integrate data for each program, providing indications of program strength and areas for enhancement, followed if appropriate by the intended program modifications. For the purposes of this report, the utilized sources of data include:

1. Counselor Education Program Alumni Surveys sent to graduates of each program (School Counseling, MCFC, CMHC (2022) & Ph.D.) by the Program in the spring of each year
2. Input from Advisory Boards and program employers
3. Ed.S. student performances on the National Counseling Exam (NCE); and,
4. Ed.S. student performances on the Praxis School Counseling Exam

 

Feedback on the Ed.S. Programs

For this reporting period, the Program received feedback from:

• 4 out of 4 School Counseling graduates (100%),
• 5 out of 5 CMHC program graduates (100%),
• 1 out of 1 MCFC graduate (100%), and
• 3 out of 3 Doctoral graduates (100%).

 

School Counseling Program

Based on the quantitative data, “strength” was a topic in which at least 100%, or 4 out of 4 respondents, rated the experience as “strongly agree:”

Strengths of itemized questions:

• USC’s Ed.S. program in School Counseling asset is the academic competence of the faculty.
• Overall, I am happy with the academic and clinical education I received at USC.
• In general, the academic workload was appropriate for a professional program.
• In general, the quality of teaching was high.
• The faculty were highly competent in the supervision process.
• In general, the assignments required for the various courses enabled me to strengthen my grasp of given topics or subjects.
• Faculty members were prepared for class.
• Faculty demonstrated positive responsiveness to student concerns.
• Faculty were available to students outside of class time.
• The grading system was fair.
• Ethical standards were continually taught and maintained by faculty and supervisors.
• I would recommend the USC School Counseling Ed.S. program to others interested in preparation to work as a school counselor.

Strengths-based on write-in comments:

• Knowledge, clinical experience, and care of the faculty
• Variety of courses offered (ex. Play Therapy)
• Readiness to enter the field

Areas for enhancement

• Provide in-depth information on 504s, IEPs, and IGPs.
• Include current trends in schools in the lecture.

Comments on Specific Faculty or Courses:

            Find another 2^nd instructor for EDCE706

Positive feedback for Drs. Guest and Ohrt

 

MCFC Program

Based on the quantitative data, “strength” was a topic in which at least 100%, or 1 out of 1, respondent, rated the experience as “strongly agree:”

Strengths via itemized questions:

• USC’s Ed.S. program in MCFC’s asset is the academic competence of the faculty.
• USC’s Ed.S. program in MCFC’s asset is the quality of the clinical experience and case conference process.
• Overall, I am happy with the academic and clinical education I received at USC.
• In general, the courses were challenging
• In general, the academic workload was appropriate for a professional program.
• In general, the quality of teaching was high.
• The faculty were highly competent in the supervision process.
• Faculty members were well prepared for class.
• Faculty demonstrated positive responsiveness to student concerns.
• Faculty members were available to students outside of class time.
• The grading system was fair.
• Faculty awareness of current trends in MCFC was evident in the classroom.
• Ethical standards were continually taught and maintained by faculty and supervisors.
• The expectations of site supervisors and USC faculty were clear, reasonable, and appropriate for field experience courses.
• The entire program of academic and clinical education provided a solid foundation for a professional career in clinical, education, agency, or government settings.
• I would recommend the USC MCFC Ed.S. program to others interested in preparing to work as an MCFC therapist.

Strengths-based on write-in comments:

• Supportive faculty
• Opportunities to network for employment
• Outstanding supervision
• Overall, personal and clinical development

Areas for enhancement:

• Sexuality course (EDCE 715) neEd.S. to be clinically relevant
• Assistance finding practicum/internship sites
• Multicultural course neEd.S. more structure

Positive feedback for Drs. Carlson, Guest, and supervisor Cara Thompson

 

CMHC Program

Based on the quantitative data, “strength” was a topic in which at least 80%, or 4 out of 5, respondents, rated the experience as “strongly agree:”

Strengths via itemized questions:

• The faculty demonstrated positive responsiveness to student concerns.
• Ethical standards were continually taught and maintained by faculty and supervisors.

Strengths-based on write-in comments:

• Competent, passionate, and approachable faculty
• Cohort cohesion
• Real-life experiences shared through lecture
• Opportunities to learn from many perspectives

Areas for enhancement

• Internship experience split into two semesters
• Improved communication through the practicum/internship process
• Offer Summer courses during a long semester (ex. Theories & Psychopathology)

Positive feedback for Dr. Crews’s Grief course

 

Doctoral Program

Based on the quantitative data, “strength” was a topic in which at least 100%, or 3 out of 3, respondents, rated the experience as “strongly agree:”

Strengths via itemized questions:

• Overall, I am happy with the academic and clinical education I received at the University of SC.
• In general, the faculty were well-prepared for class.
• Faculty demonstrated positive responsiveness to student concerns.
• Faculty members were available to students outside of class time.
• The grading system was fair.
• Faculty awareness of current trends in the counseling field was evident in the classroom.
• I would recommend the USC Counselor Education Program to others interested in counselor education at the doctoral level.

Strengths-based on write-in comments:

• Invaluable supervision, consultation, and assistance from the faculty
• Inclusive learning environment
• Opportunities for a graduate assistantship, adjunct teaching, and nominations for awards.

Areas for enhancement

• Openness to non-traditional dissertation methods
• Use of technology

Positive feedback for Drs. Carlson, Guest, Limberg, and Ohrt

 

Advisory Council Meetings per Track

MCFC Advisory Council meeting – May 02, 2022

Strengths:

• Strong support and understanding of student neEd.S. from faculty supervisors
• Play therapy certification is phenomenal
• Professional cohort
• Connecting to second-year students when searching for practicum placements

Areas for enhancement:

• Opportunities to join internship fairs
• Provide a clear definition of direct hours
• 600-hour requirement in one semester is
• Increase knowledge and training provided for mandated reports

 

CMHC Advisory Council meeting– May 02, 2022

Strengths:

• Faculty was considerate during COVID-19
• Counseling and Psychiatry (CAP) speaking about the counseling center

Areas for enhancement:

• NCE registration process
• Provide a clear understanding of direct vs. indirect hours
• Include CAP guest speaking in first-year classes

 

SC Advisory Council meeting – November, 2022

Strengths:

• Clinical preparation
• Quality of education

Areas for enhancement:

• Opportunities for collaboration
• Navigating topics in Sexuality Counseling and Cross-Cultural Counseling Diversity and multicultural – include racial tensions – “how to navigate”
• Self-care
• Speaking with “resistant” parents about mental health issues

 

Practicum/Employer Feedback

Strengths:

• Students' abilities to case conceptualize children and adolescents
• Impressed with students from USC program
• Expressed interest in hiring our students

Areas for enhancement:

• Advanced legal and ethical knowledge

 

Ed.S. student performances on the National Counseling Exam

This data is based on the reports of student performances on the Spring 2022 National Counseling Exam (NCE). The data reported is based on 6 MCFC students, 9 CMHC students, and 1 School Counseling student who sat for the exam. Out of those MCFC students, 6 out of 6 students (100%) passed the exam, 7 out of 9 (78%) CMHC students successfully passed the exam, and 1 out of 1 (100%) School Counseling student successfully passed the NCE.

Performances of 6 MCFC Students on the National Counseling Exam

Spring, 2022

	Mean Results (% correct)	Items
CACREP Areas
Human Growth & Development	10.50 (81%)	13
Social & Cultural Diversity	2.83 (71%)	4
Helping Relationships	42.17 (75%)	56
Group Work	19.00 (76%)	25
Career Development	12.83 (71%)	18
Assessment	17.50 (65%)	27
Research & Program Evaluation	5.00 (71%)	7
Professional Orientation & Ethical Practice	8.33 (83%)	10
Total	118.16 (74%)	160

 

Performances of 9 CMHC Students on the National Counseling Exam

Spring, 2022

	Mean Results (% correct)	Items
CACREP Areas
Human Growth & Development	8.00 (62%)	13
Social & Cultural Diversity	1.75 (44%)	4
Helping Relationships	37.75 (67%)	56
Group Work	18.25 (73%)	25
Career Development	12.38 (69%)	18
Assessment	17.63 (65%)	27
Research & Program Evaluation	5.25 (75%)	7
Professional Orientation & Ethical Practice	8.13 (81%)	10
Total	109.14 (68%)	160

  

Performances of 1 School Counseling Student on the National Counseling Exam

Spring, 2022

	Mean Results (% correct)	Items
CACREP Areas
Human Growth & Development	11.00 (85%)	13
Social & Cultural Diversity	3.00 (75%)	4
Helping Relationships	44.00 (79%)	56
Group Work	20.00 (80%)	25
Career Development	13.00 (72%)	18
Assessment	20.00 (74%)	27
Research & Program Evaluation	5.00 (71%)	7
Professional Orientation & Ethical Practice	7.00 (70%)	10
Total	123.00 (77%)	160

 

It can be surmised that the Spring 2022 USC results confirm the efficacy and effectiveness of the program’s pedagogy and learning experiences across all 8 CACREP core curricular areas. While the minimum national passing grade was 84/160 (52.5%), on average the MCFC students scored 118.16/160 (74%), CMHC students scored 109.14/160 (68%), and School Counseling student 123/160 (77%), so, as a total score, all students in each specialization exceeded that minimum pass mark.

In addition, with a national passing mark of 84/160, or 53%, a comparison between that cut-off score and core area performances could indicate any specific content area in which student performances did not meet or exceed that mark. Based on this data, in all 8 of 8 curricular domains, student performance exceeded the 53% minimum criteria and serves to support the efficacy of the current pedagogical practices specific to the USC Counselor Education curriculum.

 

Ed.S. student performances on the Praxis School Counseling Exam

The source for this data is the office of the Graduate Director, College of Education. The data to be reported is based on 12 students who sat for the exam in spring, 2022. All 11 students (100%) passed the exam. Once again, these scores can be viewed as confirmation of the efficacy and effectiveness of the program’s pedagogy and learning experiences for the School Counseling students.

 

Demographic Program Outcomes 2021-2022

Outcomes Reporting	School Counseling, Ed.S.	Clinical Mental Health Counseling, Ed.S.	Marriage, Couple and Family Counseling , Ed.S.	Counselor Education and Supervision, Ph.D.
Graduates	11	11	9	5
Credentialing Examination Pass Rates	100	100	100	n/a
Completion Rate	100	90	80	83
Job Placement Rate	100	100	100	100

 

Respectfully submitted,

Jonathan H. Ohrt, Ph.D.

CACREP Liaison